Bangalore District Court
The Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sanga … vs Madhumathi S P on 13 July, 2026
1 O.S.No.7548/2014
KABC010210122014
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH No.23)
: PRESENT :
Shri. T.SHRINIVAS, B.Com., LL.B (Spl.).,
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS ,
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
Dated this 13th day of July, 2026.
O.S. No.7548/2014
PLAINTIFF/S: The Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara
Sanga Niyamitha,
No.715/1, Hari Complex,
22nd Cross Road, K.R.Road,
In Front of Shastri Bakery,
BSK 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 070.
Represented by its Secretary
Mr.N.Shivananje Gowda,
S/o. Late Ningegowda,
Aged about 47 years.
(By Sri.M.N.M., Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT/S: 1) Smt.S.P.Madhumathi,
D/o. S.K.Puttaswamy,
W/o.D.Mukund Raju,
Major in age, r/at No.127, 1st Main,
Kanaka Layout, BSK II Stage,
Bangalore-560 070.
2 O.S.No.7548/2014
2) Sri.S.K.Puttaswamy,
S/o.Late Kempe Gowda,
Aged about 72 years,
R/at No.24, 2nd Cross,
3rd Main, Kanaka Layout,
Kadirenahalli, BSK 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 070.
3) Sri.S.Ram Prasad,
S/o.Sheshadri,
Major in age,
R/at No.75, 2nd Cross,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bangalore.
4) Smt.Shantha Bai,
W/o.M.K.Balaji Rao,
Major in age,
R/at No.96, Govindappa Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore.
5) Sri.Krishna Balaji Rao,
S/o.Late M.K.Balaji Rao,
Major in age, r/at No.152,
1st Main Road, Kanaka Layout,
Kadirenahalli village,
Bangalore.
6) Sri.L.Sathish,
S/o. K.Lakshman,
Major in age, r/at No.646, 18th Main,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore-70
(By Sri.D.M.M. Adv for D1,
Sri.B.M.V. Adv for D5,
Sri.Y.A.S. Adv for D6,
D2 placed ex-parte,
D3 and 4 are deleted)
3 O.S.No.7548/2014
Date of institution of suit : 27.09.2014
Nature of suit : DECLARATION,
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
& POSSESSION
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 07.04.2021
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced : 13.07.2026
Duration of the suit : Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 09 16
(T.SHRINIVAS)
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants
praying for cancellation of sale deed dated: 23.06.1994, which has
been alleged to registered on 19.08.1994 executed by plaintiff
society in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule
property (vide document No.2984/94-95) and in turn declare that
the plaintiff society is the owner of the suit schedule property.
To declare that the alleged sale deed executed on
13.04.1989 by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and
4 O.S.No.7548/2014
alleged sale deed dated: 12.09.1996 executed by defendant No.3
in favour of defendant No.4 and the registered gift deed dated:
22.03.2000 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant
No.5 and the sale deed dated: 05.07.2010 executed by the
defendant No.5 in favour of the defendant No.6 are not
binding on the plaintiff.
To direct the defendants to hand over the vacant
possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff forth with
court cost and such other reliefs.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the residential
converted property bearing Site No.152 in the layout
formed in Sy.No.19/3, 27/2 and 28/1 of Kadirenahalli
village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now
comes under the jurisdiction of BBMP., measuring to
an extent of East to West 44 + 40/2 ft and North to
South: 30 feet and bounded on the
East by : Road
West by : Private property
North by : Property bearing No.153,
South by : Property bearing No.151.
5 O.S.No.7548/2014
2. The plaint averments briefly stated as follows:
The plaintiff is the Society registered under the provisions of
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act having its office in the
above said address. The said Society acquires the land through
authority, after due procedures formed & development of lands in
to residential sites and the said sites are to be allotted to its
members only. The defendant No.1 is the member of society and
by giving false date of birth to the plaintiff society and got allotted
the site No.152 situated at Kadirenahalli village from plaintiff
society in her name. The defendant No.2 is the Director and ex-
President of the plaintiff society. The defendant No.3 and 4 are the
subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property. Defendant
No.5 is the donee of suit schedule property herein and the
defendant No.6 is the subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule
property. The society with an intention to provide sites to its
members purchased the land bearing Sy.No.19/3, 27/2 and 28/1
of Kadirenahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore measuring to
7 Acres 30 Guntas from previous owners. Thereafter the society
got converted the above mentioned land from agricultural land into
residential purpose and formed the sites and the layout is also
6 O.S.No.7548/2014approved by the BDA. The 1 st defendant was one of the member
of the plaintiff society.
The plaintiff further submits that, defendant No.2 who is the
Director and ex-President of the plaintiff society and made the
defendant No.1 who is none other than his daughter to file an
application for membership and for allotment of site. The 1 st
defendant has declared that she is a major and completed 18
years of age at the time of obtaining the membership. Thereafter,
on 28.01.1987 after allotment of the suit schedule property, lease
cum sale agreement was entered between the plaintiff and the 1 st
defendant under the register document and the same is registered
in document No.7435/1986-87 in Book No.I, Volume 2552 pages
31-33 dated: 13.02.1987 before the office of Sub-Registrar,
Bangalore South Taluk. Thereafter, on 23.06.1994 the plaintiff
society had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the
defendant No.1 and the same is registered as document
No.2984/94-95 in Book No.I, Volume No.984, pages 216-219
before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, Bangalore.
According to the bye-law of the plaintiff Society the age fixed for
7 O.S.No.7548/2014
membership is minimum 18 years and accordingly on the basis of
the documents furnished by the 1st defendant the plaintiff society
has given membership to the 1st defendant when the 2nd defendant
who was the then Secretary of plaintiff’s society. On the basis of
the documents furnished by the 1st defendant the plaintiff society
had allotted one site bearing No.152 in the layout formed by
plaintiff’s society out of the lands in Sy.No.19/3, 27/2 and 28/1 of
Kadirenahalli village, Bangalore South Taluk after obtaining
approval plan from the BDA.
The plaintiff further submits that very recently on 28.02.2013
and 25.09.2013 the plaintiff’s Society had received a complaint
letter from one Nagaraj a member of plaintiff society and the said
Nagaraj has contended in the said letter that the 1st defendant and
the 2nd defendant in collusion by providing fake date of birth
declaration to plaintiff society and got allotted the site bearing
No.152 fraudulently and after receipt of the said letter given by
Nagaraj plaintiff society got issued legal notice through their
counsel and the same is duly served to the 2nd defendant and he
has sent untenable reply. The 1st defendant had filed a suit for the
8 O.S.No.7548/2014
relief of declaration with respect to her date of birth before the 9 th
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-5) in
O.S.No.2079/2007 and the same is filed by Smt.S.P.Madhumathi
and another against the Chief Secretary and others and the said
suit came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble City Civil Judge on
28.02.2013. After due verification of the Orders passed by the
Hon’ble City Civil Judge, the plaintiff society have noticed that the
date of birth given by the 1st defendant is not acceptable in the eye
of law. Since the documents furnished by the 1 st defendant is
concocted documents and the Hon’ble Court also has already
dismissed the suit for declaration, for the said reasons plaintiff
without any alternative remedy immediately after knowing the true
facts taken action to take back the allotted site from the 1 st
defendant.
The plaintiff further submits that after due verification of the
orders passed by the Hon’ble City Civil Judge, it is noticed by the
plaintiff that on the day of entering into Lease-cum-Sale
Agreement the 1st defendant is a minor below 18 years of age,
according to the bye-law of the Society the 1 st defendant is not
9 O.S.No.7548/2014
entitled for allotment of the site even though on the basis of the
false date of birth certificate both the 1st and 2nd defendant with an
intention to cheat plaintiff’s society have got allotted the suit
schedule site and the same is liable to be taken back or withdraw
forthwith by the Society and without any alternative the plaintiff
has filed this suit for possession. In compliance of the Orders
passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Bangalore Region, Bangalore the plaintiff had placed the said
issue before the Management Committee and the Committee had
also taken a decision to take back the site which has been allotted
to the 1st defendant and accordingly the present suit is filed before
this Court.
The plaintiff further submits that the alleged sale deed
executed on 13.04.1989 by the defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.3 and alleged sale deed dated: 12.09.1996
executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 and the
registered Gift deed dated:22.03.2000 executed by defendant
No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 and the sale deed dated:
05.07.2010 executed by the defendant No.5 in favour of the
10 O.S.No.7548/2014defendant No.6 are not binding on the plaintiff and the same are
void-ab-initio and against the Rule 88(1) of Registration Act. It is
pertinent to note that the defendant No.1 and other defendants to
defraud and plaintiff society have played fraud on society and the
plaintiff prays of cancellation of the register sale deed executed in
favour of the 1st defendant. All the transaction show that all the
defendants in collusion with defraud the society grabbed the site
of plaintiff society and the said transactions are not binding on
plaintiff and liable to be cancelled. Hence this suit.
3. After service of summons the defendants, defendant
No.1, 5 and 6 entered appearance by engaging counsels.
Defendant No.2 has not appeared before the Court, hence he was
placed exparte. As per Order of this Court on 02.08.2019 the
defendant No.3 and 4 were deleted from this case. The defendant
No.5 and 6 resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing their separate
written statements.
The defendant No.6 filed objections, denied the entire
averments of the plaint and further denied that suit is highly
misconceived, frivolous, vexatious, tainted with malafide objects,
11 O.S.No.7548/2014
with illegal motives and for extraneous reasons and consideration
and as such the plaintiff has indulged into a serious malpractice of
misusing and abusing the due process of law and the same has to
be viewed very seriously by this Court. The alleged claim is based
on concocted story and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any
reliefs as prayed for in the suit especially the discretionary and
equitable one. The suit of the plaintiff for the alleged reliefs is
barred U/Sec.118 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act as
they alleged dispute raised by the plaintiff against the 1 st
defendant is the one which encompasses the entire controversy
involved in the above suit is completely comes within the ambit of
Section 70 of said Act and as such the same is exclusively domain
of the Registrar of Co-operative Society and same is not triable by
this court it is a dispute within the meaning of Section 9 of the
CPC. The suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by time. The
plaintiff has parted with the possession of the schedule property in
favour of 1st defendant dates back to 28.01.1987 and as such, the
present suit filed for declaration and possession after lapse of
nearly 27 years cannot be construed the present suit within time
even for argument sake. The present suit cannot be proceeded
12 O.S.No.7548/2014
with against this defendant as he is bonafide purchaser for value
without having notice of the alleged irregularities and malpractices
involved in securing membership in by the 1st defendant and
getting consequential allotment of the schedule property from the
plaintiff allegedly at the behest of the 2 nd defendant. The Doctrine
of Estoppels waiver and acquiescence come into play and as such
the plaintiff is morally and legally prohibited from instituting this
frivolous litigation. The suit of the plaintiff is totally devoid of
merits.
The defendant No.6 further alleged that as per the title
records furnished to defendant is speaks that the defendant No.1
being a member of the plaintiff Society has become eligible for
allotment. Accordingly, the Society has allotted the Site No.152 by
executing Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated: 28.01.1987, thereafter,
in furtherance of the same, the Society has executed the absolute
sale deed dated: 23.06.1994 in respect of the schedule property in
his favour. Thus, he continued to be in possession and enjoyment
of the schedule property as an absolute owner by having
marketable title till the execution of absolute sale deed dated:
13 O.S.No.7548/2014
13.04.1989 in favour of 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant has sold
the property to the 3rd defendant for prevailing market value on the
basis of absolute sale deed having been executed by the plaintiff
society in her favour. Thereafter, and in turn the 3rd defendant sold
the same to 4th defendant on 12.09.1996 and inturn 4th defendant
has executed a gift deed dated: 22.03.2000 in favour of 5 th
defendant and on the basis of the gift deed, the 5 th defendant has
executed the sale deed dated: 05.07.2010 and handed over the
peaceful possession of constructed building existing in schedule
property to this defendant. In the title document or legal opinion in
respect of the schedule property given to him speaks that the site
bearing No.152 as per the BDA approved layout plan was allotted
to the 1st defendant and executed the absolute sale deed dated:
23.06.1994 by the plaintiff society. Neither in the title documents
nor legal opinion it never speaks that the 1 st defendant was
allegedly ineligible for all allotment of site. The revenue
documents speak that after the execution of the sale deed and
obtaining the possession certificate, the 1st defendant got the
khatha from the BDA and paying property tax regularly in respect
14 O.S.No.7548/2014of the schedule property. Apart that she also put up construction in
the schedule property and enjoying same.
The defendant No.6 further alleged that the 1 st defendant for
her own reasons sold the schedule property to 3 rd defendant
under the sale deed dated: 13.04.1989 and put the 3rd defendant
in peaceful possession of the schedule property. Thereafter, the
3rd defendant on the basis of the sale deed executed by the 1 st
defendant, obtained the transfer of khatha in his name and
continued to be in possession of the schedule property till the day
of execution of sale deed dated: 12.09.1996 in favour of 4th
defendant. In turn, the 4th defendant being subsequent purchaser
of schedule property has executed a Gift deed dated: 23.02.2000
in favour of 5th defendant. In turn, the 5th defendant has sold the
schedule property under the sale deed dated: 05.07.2010 for
prevailing market value to him. Accordingly, he is enjoying the
schedule property as bonafide purchaser. Further alleged that, the
alleged rules or bylaw regarding eligibility to become the member of
the plaintiff society is not within his personal knowledge. However,
the very fact of plaintiff admitting the defendant No.1 to become
member in the rolls of members of it clearly demonstrate that it
15 O.S.No.7548/2014
has acted as per the records and as such now at this state the
plaintiff cannot withdraw its stand taken earlier and in view of the
same it has to thank itself for such a situation. The law does not
approve the stand of the plaintiff now taken that too after lapse of
several decades. No legal notice whatsoever is received by him at
any point of time. Mere addressing a legal notice cannot improve
the alleged case of the plaintiff in any manner. The transactions
from the 3rd to 6th defendant are bonafide for value and without
notice of alleged defects and as such plaintiff cannot claim those
transactions as not binding on it. Those transaction are not hit by
any provision of law much less the alleged rule 88(1) of
Registration Act and as such the transaction cannot be come void-
ab-initio. He is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property
for vlaue having no notice of the alleged irregularities in the
allotment of suit schedule property in favour of the 1 st defendant.
Based on previous title deeds legal opinion dated: 02.07.2001 and
physical possession of his vendor and revenue documents held in
his vendor and other predecessor, he has purchased the suit
schedule property from the 5th defendant for valuable sale
consideration, under the registered sale deed dated: 05.07.2010.
16 O.S.No.7548/2014
Ever since, he has bee in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the same by obtaining the transfer of khatha in his name. He has
been paying annual property taxes. He has put up two storied
residential constructions by investing all his life savings and
borrowing from nearest and dearest. He is living in the schedule
property along with his family members. If he deprived of the
schedule property he will become penury apart from putting into
great loss, inconvenience and injury and mental agony beyond
estimation in terms of money. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is
liable for dismissal with exemplary costs as contemplated
U/Sec.35(A) of CPC.
4. The defendant No.5 filed his separate objections and
denied the same set of facts filed by the defendant No.6 and
further alleged that his mother i.e., defendant No.4 was a bonafide
purchaser of the suit schedule property who has purchased the
schedule property from defendant No.3, by paying prevailing
market value of the schedule property under the sale deed dated:
12.09.1996, thereafter the same has been gifted to him as per the
registered Gift deed dated: 22.03.2000, in turn he having no notice
17 O.S.No.7548/2014of the alleged irregularities in the allotment of suit schedule
property in favour of the 1st defendant has sold the suit schedule
property by receiving prevailing market value from the defendant
No.6 and has executed the registered sale deed dated:
05.07.2010. Ever since from the date of sale deed, defendant
No.6 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
schedule property and has obtained the khatha in his name. The
defendant No.6 has been regularly paying property taxes. The
defendant No.6 has put up 2 floored residential constructions by
investing all his life savings and borrowing from nearest and
dearest in accordance with law. Therefore, defendant No.6 is the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit of
the plaintiff is liable for dismissal with exemplary costs as
contemplated U/Sec.35(A) of CPC.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following
issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that plaintiff society is
the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
18 O.S.No.7548/2014
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendant
No.1 and 2 got allotted suit schedule property in
the name of defendant No.1 by playing fraud on
plaintiff society?
3. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the sale deed
dated 13.04.1989 executed by the defendant No.1
in favour of defendant No.3 are null and void and
not binding on the plaintiff?
4. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the sale deed
dated 12.09.1996 executed by defendant No.3 in
favour of defendant No.4 and the registered gift
deed dated 22.03.2000 executed by defendant
No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 and the sale deed
dated 05.07.2010 not binding on the plaintiff and
same are void documents?
5. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that the suit of
the plaintiff is not maintainable as contended in
para No.4(a) and 4(d) of written statement?
6. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that suit of the
plaintiff is barred by period of limitation?
7. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that he is
bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property?
8. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that the Court
fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?
19 O.S.No.7548/2014
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration to cancel sale deed dated 23.06.1994
(Registered on 19.08.1994) as sought for?
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration as sought for?
11. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
possession of suit schedule property as sought for
12. What Order or Decree?
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the
Secretaries of plaintiff’s Society is examined as PW1 and PW2
and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 are marked on the side of the
plaintiff. After closure of the evidence on the side of the plaintiff the
6th defendant examined himself as DW1 and 5 th defendant examined
as DW2 and the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D33 are marked.
7. I have heard the arguments on the side of the learned
counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the
defendants. The learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as
defendants have also filed their written arguments. I perused the
entire records.
20 O.S.No.7548/2014
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Issue No.3 : In the Negative,
Issue No.4 : In the Negative,
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.6 : In the Negative,
Issue No.7 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.8 : In the Negative,
Issue No.9 : In the Negative,
Issue No.10 : In the Negative,
Issue No.11 : In the Negative,
Issue No.12 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 to 4, 5 and 7 :- All these issues are taken
up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and in
order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
I have heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and
defendants. The learned counsel for the parties to the suit have
also submits their written arguments. By careful perusal of rival
contentions of both the parties here in the instant case it is
reveals that admittedly the plaintiff Co-operative Society has been
21 O.S.No.7548/2014
formed Layout in Sy.No.19/3, 27/2 and 28/1 of Kadirenahalli
village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore measuring 7 Acre 30 Guntas
for the purpose to allot its members. The plaintiff Co-operative
Society is house developing Co-operative Society and the
purpose of the Society is to allot sites to the members.
Undisputedly the plaintiff society has been registered under the
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Further it is also reveals
that undisputedly the defendant No.1 and 2 were the members of
said Society. Further it is also undisputed fact that the defendant
No.2 was the Secretary and also subsequently because Chairmen
of the said Society. It is also undisputed fact that the defendant No.1
is the daughter of defendant No.2. Further it is also undisputed fact
that in the year 1987 Site bearing No.152 formed out from above
mentioned survey number Layout has been allotted to the defendant
No.1 by considering her membership in the Society. So as per the
admitted facts originally the entire survey number land bearing
Sy.No.19/3, 27/2 and 28/1 measuring 7 Acres 30 Guntas of
Kadirenahalli village has belonging to the ownership of plaintiff
Co-operative Society. Therefore, in respect to the said ownership
of the Society over said property is concern there is no dispute.
22 O.S.No.7548/2014
10. Further it is to be reveals that the plaintiff has
contended that in the year 2013 one Mr.Nagaraj, who is also the
member of plaintiff society had given a representation before the
Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies by complaining at the time
of allotting the site to the defendant No.1, she was minor and
defendant No.1 and 2 by colluding with each other got allotted
said site. Thereby the concerned authority has been directed the
plaintiff society to take suitable action under the law. Accordingly
as per the approval of board the plaintiff society has filed the
present suit for recovery of possession of suit schedule property
bearing Site No.152. It is also contended that the defendant No.1
and 2 by colluding with each other by virtue of illegal and
fraudulent Act sold the said property subsequently to defendant
No.3 and in turn continuously sold by and to defendant No.4 to 6.
Therefore it is specific contention of the plaintiff society that the
defendant No.1 by submitting false date of birth have got
membership in the society and also got allotted site by colluding
with the defendant No.2, who was the Secretary of the Society. At
that time and subsequently he was Chairmen. Thus it is the
specific contention of plaintiff society that the defendant No.1 has
23 O.S.No.7548/2014
not acquired any title over the property and thereby title is not
successfully fallen to the remaining defendant No.3 to 6.
Accordingly they are entitle for receive the possession of said
property. On the other hand, defendants were actively
participated in the suit. The defendant No.5 and 6 have
contended that they are the bonafide purchasers of property from
its previous owners and accordingly in possession and enjoyment
of said property by constructing house. It is also contended that
plaintiff suit is not maintainable in view of provisions of Karnataka
Co-operative Societies Act and also the bar of limitation.
Accordingly, defendants have claimed for dismissal of suit.
11. So by careful going through the rival contentions of
both parties here in the instant case it is required to ascertain
whether the plaintiff society is entitled for the recovery of
possession of the property on the ground of irregularities and
illegality committed at the time of allotment of the site to
defendant No.1. It is specific contention of the plaintiff society that
the defendant No.1 by given false date of birth has got
membership and allotment of the site. So in the instant case at
24 O.S.No.7548/2014
the threshold it is required to ascertain whether the defendant
No.1 by colluding with defendant No.2, who is her father has got
membership and allotment of site by given false date of birth. It is
also required to ascertain that as on the date of said allotment of
the site the defendant No.1 was the minor. So said in order to
ascertain the said fact it is required to go in detail enquiry of the
case.
12. Thus by careful perusal of evidence placed before the
Court it is to be seen that the authorized persons of the plaintiff
society have been examined as PW1 and PW2 by submits their
affidavits in lieu of their chief-examination and also produced
documentary evidence Ex.P.1 to 14. In the oral evidence the said
PW1 and PW2 have reiterated the averments of the plaint.
Thereby it is stated that the defendant No.1 and 2 by played
fraud and colluding with each other have got allotted site in the
name of defendant No.1 by illegally. In order to rebut the
evidence of plaintiff, the defendant No.6 has examined as DW1
by submits his affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination and
produced documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.33. In the evidence also it is
25 O.S.No.7548/2014
submits that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property and
also he is not anything aware about the fraud played by the
defendant No.1 and 2 to the plaintiff society. In the evidence it is
also stated that the plaintiff suit is utterly bar by law of limitation
and also not maintainable before the Court in view of provisions
of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. So, in the evidence also
the parties to the suit have reiterated their contentions as taken in
their pleadings. Both the witnesses have been submitted to cross-
examination for test their testimony.
13. So by careful perusal of evidence placed before the
Court it is to be seen that admittedly as per Ex.P.1 Lease-cum-
Sale agreement was executed in favour of defendant No.1 by the
plaintiff society on 28.01.1987. By virtue of said Lease-cum-Sale
agreement subsequently the defendant No.1 had sold the said
property bearing site No.152 to defendant No.3 and in turn he
was old the said property to defendant No.4 and subsequently so
had continued the change of title through the registered
documents to defendant No.6. The Ex.P.2, Ex.P.6 to 8 are
corroborating the said fact. Thus as per the evidence it is
26 O.S.No.7548/2014
undisputedly reveals that as on the date of filing of present suit
the registered sale deed of the suit property has been standing in
the name of defendant No.6 and relevant required khathas have
been changed in his name. Ex.D.7 are reflecting the same. As per
the documents, it goes to reveals that the subsequent purchasers
of the property i.e., defendant No.3 to 5 have been got changed
their Mutation in the BBMP and also by taken required permission
have been constructed house thereon. The defendant No.6 also
got changed in his name of the said house property. So, by
considering the said material evidence it is goes to prove the as on
the date of suit there is no open site is existing but the topography of
the said property has been changed into house property. The
property is not standing in the name of defendant No.1.
14. Further by careful perusal of evidence placed before
the court it is to be seen that in the evidence by considering the
contentions of both the parties and their evidence it appears and
proved that at the time of allotment of Site bearing No.152 the
age of defendant No.1 was minor. The document Ex.P.14
Judgment and decree passed by 9th Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.2079/2007. It is goes to reveals that
27 O.S.No.7548/2014
the said O.S.No.2079/2007 was filed by the defendant No.1 for
correction of date of birth in the educational records. It was the
contention of defendant No.1 and 2 that in the Marks Card of
SSLC of defendant No.1 date of birth was wrongly entered as
18.03.1969 instead of 18.03.1968. The said suit was came to be
dismissed after conduct full-fledged trial. The Judgment and
decree of said suit has been attained its finality. There is no
evidence or proof has been produced before the Court by the
defendants to show about set-aside the said Judgment and
decree. Thus it is reveals that the said Judgment and decree has
been reached its finality. Therefore, by considering the said
Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2079/2007 it is goes to
reveals that the date of birth of defendant No.1 has been
mentioned in records as 18.03.1969 and as on the date of her
membership into the plaintiff society she was around 17 years
and undisputedly she was minor at that time. Thus as per the
documentary evidence placed before the Court it is crystal clearly
goes to reveals that in violation of Chapter 2 of plaintiff Co-
operative Society Bye-Law the defendant No.1 has been made a
member of the society. So, as per the legal documents placed by
28 O.S.No.7548/2014
the plaintiff society it is goes to reveals that during the age of
minority of defendant No.1 membership has been admitted given
to her in the plaintiff society. The said material fact has been
admitted or denied by the defendant No.1 and the other
defendants. It is point to be noted that defendant No.5 and 6 have
stated that they are not aware about anything with regard to the
affairs of membership of defendant No.1 with the plaintiff society.
So in respect to the said illegality and irregularity is concern the
defendant No.1 has not produced any rebuttal evidence. Thereby
as per the available evidence i.e., Judgment and Decree passed
in O.S.No.2079/2007 it appears that during the minority of
defendant No.1, the plaintiff society has got her membership in
the society. By considering the date of birth 18.03.1969 as per the
records it is goes to reveals that in the year 1987 at the time of
issuing allotment letter as per Ex.D.1 i.e., 01.01.1987 age of 18
years has not been completed. So, after attaining the age of 17
years and between the age of completion of 18 years the
defendant No.1 has been made her membership in the society.
15. As per the settled principle of law with regard to the
age of attainment of majority only after completion of full 18 years
29 O.S.No.7548/2014
of age, but not running the days of 18 years. So, as per the law if
the 18 years is not completed then it cannot be considered as the
attainment of majority. Here in the instant case the question in
relating to the attainment of majority is in connection with
immovable property. Thus as per the specific act the age of
majority of a person should be 18 years. Hence, by considering
the date of birth of defendant No.1 it shows during the age of
minority she has been made as a member in the plaintiff society.
Hence undisputedly it is goes to reveals that during the age of
minority the defendant No.1 had become member of the plaintiff
society. In the oral evidence of witnesses there is nothing much
reasonable grounds are forthcoming since all the witnesses are
not personally aware about the age of defendant No.1. However,
when the document Ex.P.14 the Judgment and decree in
O.S.No.2079/2007 itself is speaks about the age of defendant
No.1 as on the date of 01.01.1987. During the period of allotment
of site by the plaintiff society then it cannot deny the contention
taken by the plaintiff with regard to the age of defendant No.1 at
the time of allotment of site. Thus in the evidence it is proved that
as on the date of membership of the defendant No.1 and also the
30 O.S.No.7548/2014
date of allotment of site in her name the defendant No.1 was the
minor and not legally attained the age of majority. So, the said
material fact is definitely stands in violation of Chapter 2
provisions of plaintiff society Bye-laws. In Rule 6 and 11 of Bye-
Law it is clearly show. By considering the said material fact it is
goes to establishes that as on the date of become member by the
defendant No.1 she was minor. The said fact is not denied or
rebutted by the defendants.
16. So, under said circumstances now it is question
remains for ascertain and consider with regard to the legality of
the allotment of site in the name of defendant No.1 execution of
subsequent documents Lease-cum-Sale agreement and also
registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1.
17. So with regard by perusing the evidence placed
before the Court it reveals that admittedly the plaintiff society had
given site bearing No.152 perportedly by followed the procedure
of law and also rule of Society Bye-Law. The plaintiff society had
taken the list of members of the society approved from the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore. As per Chapter 2
31 O.S.No.7548/2014
Rule 6(1) of Bye-law the plaintiff company has to get approval of
list of members intended to be enter as a member of the Society.
So, without get said approval from the concerned department as
per the Rule of Bye-Laws and also provision U/Sec.Karnataka
Co-opeative Societies Act any third person is cannot be become
member of the Society. Here in the instant case there is no
dispute with regard to the allotment of membership to the
defendant No.1 by the plaintiff society after completion of all the
due requirements under the Bye-Law and also Co-opeative
Soceities Act. The defendants are also not denied the said
material fact and even the plaintiff. The plaintiff Co-operative
Society has clearly admitted the said material factum of
membership of defendant No.1 in plaintiff society. Accordingly
based on the said membership of the defendant No.1 came into
existence of Ex.P.1 Lease-cum- Sale Agreement and Ex.P.2 of
the year 1994 registered Sale deed executed by plaintiff society
in favour of defendant No.1. At the time of registration of Sale
deed in the name of defendant No.1 Ex.D.2 the defendant No.1
was attained age of majority. The said document is shows the
age of defendant No.1 was 25 years. So by considering the said
32 O.S.No.7548/2014
material fact it shows that the document Lease-cum-Sale
agreement and also the registerd Sale deed was executed by the
plaintiff society during the age of her majority, but not at minority.
The plaintiff Co-operative Society based on the said material
ground handed over the possession of the property through the
registered document in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, for
the said reason it is goes to shows that at the time of registration
of document in favour of defendant No.1 none of the members or
the Board members have not raised any questions with regard to
the date of birth of defendant No.1. More over the list of allottees
of the sites was also approved by the Joint Registrar of Co-
opeative Societies. It is undisputed fact that, even the said
Registrar of Co-opertive Societies had also not raised any
objections while approving the Layout plan, Sketch, List of
members of the plaintiff Society. On the other hand, it is reveals
that at the beginning of the procedure of allot of membership in
the plaintiff society the society has not given importance and also
not made any efforts to verify the actual date of birth of defendant
No.1, but given allotment of site to defendant No.1. Thereby it is
goes to shows that that the plaintiff Society had executed
33 O.S.No.7548/2014
registered Sale deed in faovur of plaintiff in respect of suit
schedule property. There was no any allegations or what-so-ever
by the plaintiff society. Subsequently the plaintiff society had
issued Lease-cum-Sale agreement and also astonishly Sale deed
in the year 1994 i.e., sold the property by the defendant No.1 in
the year 1989 to 3rd defendant. So, the said property has been
transferred by the defendant No.1 in the year 1989 i.e., before the
compliance of terms of Bye-Law in respect of not to sell the
property within a period of 5 years from the date of allotment.
However, it is concern of the Co-operative Society and there is a
exception to take permission for sell the property. So, the material
point to concern is the plaintiff Co-operative Society had executed
registered Sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 1994
in respect of same property. So, till the said period there was no
any issue or dispute with regard to the date of birth of defendant
No.1 or the legality of membership. So, the matter went smoothly
till the dispute arose. It is point to be noted that undisputedly in
the evidence it is proved that the defendant No.2 being a father of
defendant No.2 and holding a key post in the plaintiff society has
manage to get allot property in the name of defendant No.1 and
34 O.S.No.7548/2014
get execute subsequent registered documents. Therefore, the
said material fact it is goes to reveals that something fishy in
allotment of property in the name of defendant No.1 by the
plaintiff society. However, it is once again astonish to point to note
that as per the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act
the list of allottees of the sites has to be approved by the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The said process also
completed in accordance with law and then only the sale deed
was executed by the plaintiff society in favour of defendant No.1.
So, by considering the said material facts and circumstances and
the procedure adopted by the plaintiff society in alloting the
property to defendant No.1, it appears lots of irregularities and
also illegalities committed by the plaintiff society and also the
defendant No.1. The plaintiff society has not verified the
documents submitted by the defendant No.1 at the time of
granting membership of the defendant No.1 and also
subsequently not verified the concerned documents at the time of
allotment and execution of registered documents in favour of
defendant No.1. So, the said material fact reveals about
irregulariteis committed by the plaintiff society also. However, by
35 O.S.No.7548/2014
considering the evidence placed before the Court at this relevant
point of time prima-facie it appears that the allotment of site
bearing No.152 in the name of defendant No.1 was made with an
bundle of irregularities and also illegalities by the plaintiff society
and also the defendant No.1.
18. Further by careful perusal of evidence placed before
the Court it reveals that it is specific contention of the plaintiff
society that they have came to know about the alleged fraud
committed by the defendant No.1 only after the representation
given by one Nagaraj to the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society,
Bangalore. The said Nagaraj is also none other than the one of
the members of the said society. So, based on the said complaint
given by Nagaraj on 23.11.2013 the Joint Registrar of Co-opeative
Society had writtern a letter to plaintiff society and issued Notice to
the defendants and thereafter filed the present suit. So, admittedly
the plaintiff society by passing a resolution in the Board Meeting to
take legal action against the defendant No.1 only to the extent of
recover the property passed Resolution as per Ex.P.10 and
accordinlgy filed the present suit. It is astonish to note that despite
36 O.S.No.7548/2014
of it is brought to the Notice of plaintiff society with regard to the
age of defendant No.1 was not attained the age of majority at the
time of allotment of membership and also the site, the plaintiff
society has not taken any action for ascertain the fact by making
enquiries or filed complaint before the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies or filing a complaints and Etc against the defendant No.1
and 2. It is point to be noted that the plaintiff society so far has not
cancelled the membership of defendant No.1 even though they
came to know about the Judgment passed in O.S.No.2079/2007
with regard to the date of birth of defendant No.1. So, the said
conduct of plaintiff society is appears unnatural and also strange.
19. However be that apart if it is considered the entire
subject matter of the dispute between the parties at the threshold
it shows that there is a huge dispute between the parties in
respect of membership of the defendant No.1 in the plaintiff
society. The sanction of membership and also the allotment of
sites is purely a affairs of constitution and business of the Co-
operative Society. Hence, the dispute relating to the issue of
membership being a constitutional affair of the plaintiff society and
37 O.S.No.7548/2014
it has to be dealt by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society,
but not decide by the Civil Courts. The Issue relating to the affairs
of members of the society is a dispute is nothing but a dispute
between members of the society in respect of affairs of the society
which is allotment of site. So, unless and until the plaintiff society
has submits its report to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Society in respect to the said dispute and based on the said report
the Joint Registrar resolve the dispute in accordance with law this
Court is cannot having any type of jurisdiction to adjudicate or
decide the said issue relating to the constitution, business and
management of society. As per Section 118 of Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act it is clear bar to decide the disputes
relating to the affairs of Co-operative Societies Act as enumerated
in Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The said
provisions are reads as thus for refreshing mind:-
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for
decision.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the
constitution, management, or the business of a co-
operative society arises,–
38 O.S.No.7548/2014
(a) among members, past members and persons
claiming through members, past members
and deceased members, or
(b) between a member, past member or person claiming
through a member, past member or
deceased member and the society, its *board* or any
officer, agent or employee of
the society, or
(c) between the society or its *board* and any past
*board*, any officer, agent or employee,
or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the
nominee, heirs, or legal
representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent,
or deceased employee of the society, or
(d) between the society and any other co-operative
society, [or a credit agency] such dispute shall be referred
to the Registrar for decision and [no civil or labour or
revenue court or Industrial Tribunal] shall have jurisdiction
to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of
such dispute.
1. Substituted by Act 2 of 2000 w.e.f. 20.06.2000 by
notification. Text of the notification is at end of the Act.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall
be deemed to be disputes
touching the constitution, management or the business of
a co-operative society, namely:–
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it
from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal
representatives of a deceased member, whether such
debt or demand be admitted or not;
39 O.S.No.7548/2014
(b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where
the society has recovered from the surety any amount in
respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal
debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor
whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;
[(d) any dispute between a co-operative society and its
employees or past employees or heirs or legal
representatives of a deceased employee, including a
dispute regarding the terms of employment, working
conditions and disciplinary action taken by a co-operative
society [notwithstanding anything contrary contained in
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)]
(e) a claim by a co-operative society for any deficiency
caused in the assets of the co-operative society by a
member, past member, deceased member or deceased
officer, past agent or deceased agent or by any servant,
past servant or deceased servant or by its *board*, past
or present whether such loss be admitted or not.] 1.
Clauses (d) and (e) inserted by Act 19 of 1976 w.e.f.
20.01.1976. 2. Inserted by Act 2 of 2000 w.e.f.
20.06.2000.
(3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to
the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the
constitution, management or the business of a co-
operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar
shall be final and shall not be called in question in any
court.
Section 118 of Karnataka Co-operatives Act:-
118. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.- (1) Save as provided
in this Act, no 1 [civil, labour or revenue court or
40 O.S.No.7548/2014Industrial Tribunal] shall have any jurisdiction in
respect of,–
1. Substituted by Act 2 of 2000 w.e.f. 20.06.2000.
(a) the registration of a co-operative society or bye-
laws or of an amendment of a bye-law;
[(b) the removal of a member or the removal and
disqualification of a director or the removal of a board;
(c) any surcharge application required under section
69 or any dispute required under section 70 to be
referred to the Registrar or the recovery of moneys
under section 100 or the execution of any award or
order referred to the Registrar for execution under
section 101]
1. Substituted by Act 3 of 2013 w.e.f. 11.02.2013.
(d) any matter concerning the winding up and the
dissolution of a co-operative society.
(2) While a co-operative society is being wound up, no
suit or other legal proceedings relating to the business
of such society shall be proceeded with, or instituted
against, the Liquidator as such or against the society
or any member thereof, except by leave of the
Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose.
(3) Save as provided in this Act, no order, decision or
award made under this Act shall be questioned in any
court on any ground whatsoever.
20. So by considering the dispute of the present suit it is
definitely falling within the ambit of Section 70(i) between
41 O.S.No.7548/2014
members of the society since Nagaraj has questioned the legality
of membership of the defendant No.1. Admittedly the said Nagaraj
is also the member of the plaintiff society. Hence, under said
circumstances the present dispute unless adjudicated by the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Society Act as per provisions of Co-
operative Societies Act this Court is cannot adjudicate the dispute.
Thereby by considering the said fact it shows definitely the
present suit of the plaintiff is bar U/Sec.9 of CPC. So, at the
threshold of the case it shows that the plaintiff suit is not
maintainable before the Court in view of specific bar U/Sec.118 of
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Though in the present suit
the plaintiff has cleverly set up its pleadings claimed relief directly
for cancellation and declaration of sale deed dated: 23.06.1994
and thereby declare the ownership of plaintiff over the suit
property, but the primary dispute in the case on hand with regard
to the membership of the defendant No.1 with the plaintiff society.
So, unless and until the said question is resolved the question of
allotment of property is directly cannot adjudicated. Therefore, on
the said ground definitely the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable before the Court. Though the plaintiff society claimed
42 O.S.No.7548/2014
relief of declaration of ownership and also cancellation of
document and consequential relief of possession, but not
produced any documents to show the orders of Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies for given liberty to claim the relief from the
Court and also suitable resolution passed by the Board. The
Ex.P.10 copy of Resolution produced by the plaintiff is reflects that
on December 2013 the plaintiff Society based on the letter written
by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed a Resolution
stating to recover the site after taken due legal opinion from the
Advocate. So, apart from the said Resolution not passed
resolution with regard to filing of civil and criminal case against
defendant No.1 and 2. The society also not produced any
evidence to show about the legal opinion taken by them before
filing the present suit. The society without taking any permission
from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has knock the doors
of this Court for seeking relief in respect to the dispute of the
membership of the one of the members of the society. So, the said
Bye-Pass Procedure adopted by the plaintiff in filing the present
suit is definitely not tenable under the Law. Accordingly on the said
ground definitely the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
43 O.S.No.7548/2014
21. However in the interest of justice and by considering
the pleadings of defendant No.3 to 6 if it is looked into the
evidence placed before the Court it is reveals that undisputedly as
discussed supra that the property was allotted to the defendant
No.1 in the year 1987 itself and she was sold the said property to
defendant No.2 in the year 1987 and thereafter regularly and
consecutively transfer the property by defendant No.3 to
defendant No.6. At present finally property is with the possession
of defendant No.6. It is undisputed fact that the defendant No.6 is
residing in the said property by constructing house and Etc. So,
the defendant No.3 to 6 are purchased the property from
defendant No.1 time after time without knowing about irregularities
crept in allotting the membership of defendant No.1 by the plaintiff
society. It is admitted fact by the witness that the defendant No.3
to 6 are not the members of plaintiff society and they are
strangers. So, the defendant No.3 to 5 are totally unaware about
the affairs of plaintiff society. In the evidence PW1 and PW2 have
clearly admitted about the said fact. More over during the cross-
examination of DW1 it is not made-out by the plaintiff with regard
to the awareness of defendant No.3 to 6 in respect to the said
44 O.S.No.7548/2014
dispute between the parties. Hence, under said circumstances it is
crystal clearly goes to shows that since from 1989 the subsequent
purchasers i.e., defendant No.3 to 6 are bonafide purchasers and
they are not aware about the fact of alleged allegations and
dispute regarding date of birth and age of defendant No.1. Hence
under said circumstances the defendant No.3 to 6 are cannot be
considered as colluded with defendant No.1 and 2 and got
changed ownership of the property through time to time. On the
other hand it is crystal clearlly to establishes that they are
bonafide purchaser of the property. Admittedly, the defendant No.6
is in possession of the property since from its purchase without
having any knowledge of the act done by the defendant No.1.
Thus, under said circumstances the defendant No.6 is cannot be
put injustice and hardship due to the act of defendant No.1 and 2.
As per settled principle of law and also as per the Evidence Act
the principles of estoppels and acquiescence will play into vital
role in the case on hand in respect to the defendant No.6. It is
admitted fact that the topography of suit schedule site has been
changed since from many years. The subsequent purchasers of
defendant No.1 have constructed house property thereon.
45 O.S.No.7548/2014
Therefore, the plaintiff society has not taken any action against the
defendant No.1 or 2 much earlier to the changes of topography of
the suit property. The plaintiff society may stated that cause of
action arose only after the representation given by one Nagaraj in
respect of date of birth of defendant No.1 i.e., in the year 2013,
but their silence from the date of her membership in the Society
and also allotment of site itself is shows about their acquiescence
of facts relating to the allotment and also change of title from
defendant No.1 to subsequent defendants. Thereby the said
material conduct of the plaintiff society is definitely goes to reveals
about their acquiescence and accordingly the act and conduct of
plaintiff society will hit by the provisions of acquiescence.
Moreover the plaintiff society so far as not taken any action
against defendant No.1 in respect of her membership in the
society since from the date of their knowledge about the date of
birth of the defendant No.1, so the said silence and act and
conduct of plaintiff society will hit by the principles of estoppels to
take action against defendant No.6. The said conduct of the
plaintiff society is definitely restricting the plaintiff society to take
action against the defendant No.6 for recovery of possession.
46 O.S.No.7548/2014
Hence, by considering all the material facts and circumstances of
the case I am of the opinion that the said act and conduct of
plaintiff society is definitely hit by the principles of estoppel and
acquiescence. It is undisputed fact that the defendant No.6
without having knowledge about any act done by the defendant
No.1 or the plaintiff society had purchased the property and by
changing khatha in his name enjoying the property in occupation.
Therefore, the said conduct of the defendant No.6 is crystal clearly
reflects that he is bonafide a purchaser for the consideration
amount of the property. It is no doubt as per Law better title is not
follows to purchaser if vendor title is under threat and shaken. But
in the instant case defendant No.3 to 6 have purchased the
property without any knowledge of irregularities of the allotment.
The rule of Caveat Emptor is also applicable, but the defendant
No.6 had purchased property, after defendant No.3 to 5 and after
passing of two decades. Hence, under said circumstances the
question of deny the title of defendant No.6 over the suit property
and confirm the title of plaintiff society over the suit property is
does not arise at all. Though the plaintiff society has alleged that
the defendant No.1 and 2 by played fraud to the society got
47 O.S.No.7548/2014
allotted site, but in respect of said act done by the defendant No.1
and 2 is not responsible for the defendant No.6, who is
subsequent purchaser with bonafide intention. Therefore, the
plaintiff society unless and until take suitable steps against
defendant No.1 and 2 as per the law in respect of said allegation
of fraud the liability is cannot be fixed on the defendant No.6.
Thereby the contention of the plaintiff in respect of retain title over
the property, at this relevant point of time does not arise at all.
Hence by considering all the material facts and circumstances of
the case I am of the opinion that the suit of plaintiff is at the
inception and threshold is not maintainable under the law before
this Civil Court in view of bar U/Sec.118 of Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act. Apart from the said ground also the
plaintiff society is fails to made-out grounds to consider that
society has retained the title and ownership of the property in view
of alleged fraud, misconduct and misrepresentation done by the
defendant No.1. As discussed supra it reveals principles of
estoppel and acquiescence has been applicable to the plaintiff
society. Thus under said circumstances the plaintiff society is
cannot be considered as a owner of suit schedule property at this
48 O.S.No.7548/2014
relevant point of time. Hence the plaintiff society is fails to
establish its title over the property as on the date of filing of the
suit without followed due procedure available under the law.
Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 to 4 in the Negative, Issue No.5
in Affirmative and Issue No.7 in Affirmative.
22. Issue No.6:- In the written statement the defendant
No.6 has taken a contention that suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly
barred by limitation since the suit has been filed by the plaintiff
society after lapse of more than 20 years for seeking relief against
defendant No.1 and 2. So, the plaintiff suit is not maintainable
under the law. Therefore, in respect to the point of limitation is
concern by careful perusal of materials placed before the Court in
my opinion that there is no limitation is barred to file the present
suit by the plaintiff society. As per the facts remains in the suit it is
reveals that the plaintiff society has acquired the knowledge of
alleged fraud committed by defendant No.1 and 2 only after the
representation given by one Mr.Nagaraj to Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Bangalore. The document Ex.P.11 which is
letter issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the
49 O.S.No.7548/2014
plaintiff’s society in respect of said representation given by
Nagaraj in respect of irregularities in allotment of site is itself
shows about the starting cause of action for the plaintiff society. It
is admitted fact that the plaintiff society had acquired said
knowledge about the litigation only after the said letter issued by
the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore.
Thereafter the plaintiff society has filed the suit in the year 2014
within a period of 3 years from the present date of actual cause of
action arose for them to file a suit. It is point to be noted that in the
evidence during the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 the
defendant No.6 has not made-out any grounds to consider that
the plaintiff society has knowledge of irregularities crept in allotting
the property to defendant No.1 at the time of allotment of the site
itself. So, under said circumstances by considering the present
facts and circumstances of the case and contentions taken by the
plaintiff itself goes to reveals that definitely the plaintiff suit is not
barred under the law of limitation. More over, the present suit has
been filed by the plaintiff for seeking comprehensive relief of title
based on allegation of fraud and Etc. Therefore, under said
circumstances the law of limitation is cannot be invoked from the
50 O.S.No.7548/2014
date of allotment. Hence, by considering all the material facts and
circumstances of the case in the instant case it cannot be
considered without any valid reasons the plaintiff suit is hit by the
law of limitation. Hence, the contention taken by the defendant
No.6 is cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the defendant No.6 is
fails to prove that the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by
limitation. Accordingly, I answer this Issue in Negative.
23. Issue No.8:- In the written statement the defendant
No.6 has taken contention that the plaintiff has not paid proper
Court Fee to the reliefs claimed by society in respect of suit. The
plaintiff has claimed relief of declaration of title and also recovery
of possession by cancellation of registered sale deed and Etc. The
suit schedule property is a immovable house property. The plaintiff
society has valued U/Sec.26(1) of KCF and SV Act and paid
Rs.1,30,000/- on the market value of property as a Court fee. The
plaintiff society has valued the suit property at Rs.25 Crores as a
market value. So, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not
sufficient. It is also taken contention that the suit property is valued
more than Crores of Rupees. Therefore, the plaintiff has to pay
51 O.S.No.7548/2014
Court fee on actual market value. Hence taken contention that the
plaintiff society has not paid proper Court fee to the suit.
24. Admittedly the suit property is immovable property
and plaintiff is seeking for relief of declaration and possession of
the said property and accordingly paid the Court fee. So, the relief
claimed by the plaintiff is falling U/Sec.24(A) of KCF and SV Act.
The plaintiff has valued the market value of the property is at
Rs.25,00,000/- and paid Court fee. In order to rebut the said
valuation and also show the actual market value of the property
the defendants have not produced any iota of evidence before the
Court. On the other hand, the sale deed of defendant No.5 and 6
as per Ex.D.7 it shows the market value of the property fixed at
Rs.40,00,000/- i.e., in the year 2010. So, as per the said
document it shows the market value of the property was
Rs.40,00,000/- in the year 2010. The present suit is filed in the
year 2014. So by considering the said valuation of the property it
appears the plaintiff has paid less Court fee then the market value.
However, none of the parties have produced documents showing
the actual market value of the property as on the date of filing of
52 O.S.No.7548/2014
the present suit. The parties to the petition have not produced
Government S.R value of the property. Therefore, under said
circumstances the valuation made for the purpose of registration
of the property by the defendant No.6 is in itself cannot be
considered as proof of correct market value of the property. The
present plaintiff is not party to the said registered sale deed
Ex.D.27. Therefore, the valuation made by the defendant No.5
and 6 while registering the sale deed is not binding to the plaintiff.
Hence in the absence of material proof of evidence and supportive
documents the valuation made by the plaintiff for the purpose of
Court fee at Rs.25,00,000/- is cannot be denied and disbelieve.
The defendants have not shown any reasons to consider that the
plaintiff has undervalued the property for the purpose of Court fee.
Hence, by considering all the material facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the opinion that the defendants have not made-
out any grounds to consider that the plaintiff society has paid less
Court fee to the suit and there is a deficit of Court fee. Accordingly,
in view of my above discussion I answer this issue in the
Negative.
53 O.S.No.7548/2014
25. Issue No.9:- In view of above discussion as discussed
supra it is made-out that the plaintiff society is not made-out any
grounds to consider that the sale deed executed by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 to 6 are illegal. It is made-out
and proved that defendant No.3 to 6 are the bonafide purchasers
of the property without having knowledge. Therefore, under said
circumstances the sale deeds of defendant No.3 to 6 more
particularly executed in favour of defendant No.4 dated:
23.06.1994 is cannot be termed as illegal. Thus, under said
circumstances the question of canceling the said document is
does not arise at all. While discussion as above it is discussed
about the validity of documents executed by defendant No.3 to 6
without having knowledge of irregularities in obtained membership
in the society by the defendant No.1 and Etc, but it cannot
consider that their sale deeds are illegal and deserves to be set-
aside. I have already made it clear that the principles of estoppels
and acquiescence are applicable to the case on hand and also the
defendant No.3 to 6 are the bonafide purchasers. It is also made-
out that plaintiff suit is not maintainable before this court in view of
bar U/Sec.118 of Co-operative Societies Act. Hence, under said
54 O.S.No.7548/2014
circumstances, the question of cancel the Sale deed dated:
23.06.1994 is does not arise at all. Accordingly, I answer this issue
in the Negative.
26. Issue No.10 and 11:- The plaintiff society herein
claiming for the relief of declaration of title cancellation of sale
deeds and possession of the suit schedule property from the
defendant No.6. As discussed supra it is made-out that at the
threshold of the suit is not maintainable in view of bar under
provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before this
Court. The plaintiff Society unless and until exercise remedies
available under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act directly
the filing of present suit for seeking comprehensive reliefs is totally
not maintainable under law. As discussed supra it is made-out that
there is a dispute between the members of the society. Thus the
provision U/Sec.118 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is
come into play in the case on hand. Therefore, for the said reason
the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff society in the present suit is
cannot be granted. However, apart from the said technical
remedies even by considering the facts and circumstances of the
55 O.S.No.7548/2014
case it is also made-out that the defendant No.3 to 6 are the
bonafide purchasers of the property for the consideration amount.
The defendants more particularly the defendant No.6 is in settled
possession of the property having enjoying the same as absolute
owner. The defendant No.6 acquired the title by through the
registered sale deed and enjoying the possession without
anybodies obstructions. Thus under said circumstances the
plaintiff society only on the basis of some irregularities crept in the
allotment of property. The said settled possession of the
defendant No.6 is cannot be disposed. As discussed supra it is
proved that the plaintiff’s society is not satisfied the principles of
estoppels and acquiescence. Therefore, even on the said ground
also the plaintiff society is not entitled for the relief of declaration
of ownership and recovery of possession of property as claimed
for. Hence, in view of my above discussions I answer Issue No.10
and 11 are in the Negative.
27. Issue No.12:- In view of my findings on the above
issues No. 1 to 11, I proceed to pass the following:
56 O.S.No.7548/2014
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed, computerized
and printout taken by him, revised and then pronounced by me in the
open court on this the 13th day of July, 2026.)(T. SHRINIVAS)
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the plaintiff/s :
PW1 - Shivananje Gowda N. PW2 - Vinay Witness examined for the defendant/s : DW1 - Sathish L. DW2 - Krishna Balaji Rao Documents marked for the plaintiff/s : Ex.P1 - CC of Lease-cum-sale agreement Ex.P2 - CC of Sale deed dated: 23.06.1994 Ex.P3 - Copy of Notice dated: 04.04.2014 Ex.P4 - 2 Postal receipts 57 O.S.No.7548/2014 Ex.P5 - Returned RPAD cover Ex.P6 - CC of Sale deed dated: 13.04.1989 Ex.P7 - CC of Sale deed dated: 12.09.1996 Ex.P8 - CC of Gift deed dated: 22.03.2000 Ex.P9 - CC of Sale deed dated: 05.07.2010 Ex.P10 - CC of Resolution Ex.P11 - CC of Letter dated: 23.11.2013 Ex.P12 - Copy of Letter dated: 26.02.2024 Ex.P13 - Temporary Appointment Letter of Sri.K.Vinay S/o. Krishnappa Ex.P14 - CC of Judgment and Decree in -O.S.No.2079/2007 Documents marked for the defendant/s : Ex.D1 - Site Distribution Letter from Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Ltd. Ex.D2 - Registered Sale deed dated: 23.06.1994 Ex.D3 - Registered Sale deed dated: 13.04.1989 Ex.D4 - Relinquishment deed dated: 12.12.1994 Ex.D5 - Registered Sale deed dated: 12.09.1996 Ex.D6 - Registered Gift deed dated: 22.03.2000 Ex.D7 - Registered Sale deed dated: 05.07.2010 Ex.D8 - Rectification deed dated: 08.01.2020 Ex.D9 - Complaint to Shankarpuram Police Station Ex.D10 - Acknowledgment from Shankarpuram Police -Station Ex.D11 - Tax paid receipt Ex.D12 - Uttar Pathra 58 O.S.No.7548/2014 Ex.D13 - Tax paid receipt Ex.D14 - Endorsement issued by BBMP Ex.D15 - Tax paid receipt for the year 2023-24 Ex.D16 - Khatha Certificate Ex.D17 - Khatha Extract Ex.D18 - Khatha Certificate Ex.D19 - Khatha Extract Ex.D20 - Tax paid receipt Ex.D21 - Khatha Letter Ex.D22 - Uttar Pathra Ex.D23 - Plan Approval Letter Ex.D24 - Approved Plan Ex.D25 - Plan sanctioned receipt Ex.D26 - Approved Plan Ex.D27 - Encumbrance Certificate Ex.D28 - CC of Lease-cum- Sale Agreement dated: - 28.01.1987 Ex.D29 to 31- Three Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D32 - CC of Sale deed dated: 08.04.2010 Ex.D33 - By-Law of Kanaka Gruhanirmana Sangha Ltd. (T.SHRINIVAS) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE. 59 O.S.No.7548/2014 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate detailed Judgment) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (T.SHRINIVAS) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE. 60 O.S.No.7548/2014
